About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
CSPAN 20
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
china. thus providing exporters -- germany, japan, or china -- with the requisite demand necessary. so, the ever expanding trade deficit was not an accident. it was a very clever way of replacing one that surplus recycling system with another. the first one, it was one where america had a surplus and america decided instead of doing what germany is doing at the moment -- which is cutting its nose to spite its face, and thereby entering into recession by cutting, cutting, cutting -- volcker as the head of the fed had a different idea. we are going to expand our dominance and our wealth by expanding our deficit and using our deficits to provide the rest of the world with the demand which is necessary to grow their economies, even at the expense of ours. and who is going to pay for the deficit? if i have an ever-expanding deficit, the bank tells me it is game over. but if you are the united states of america and you have the reserve currency of the world, and certain other factors that i will touch upon later, what you can do is you can expand your deficit as long as you create the circum
, as of right now china owns $1.15 trillion of our debt. then, number two on the list, is japan with $1.13 trillion of our debt. now, this is interesting. out of this debt number three on the list is opec. opec is an entity. that's the countries of ecuador and venezuela and india and bahrain and iran and iraq and kuwait and amman and qatar and saudi arabia and the u.a.e., algeria, ga been a, -- gabon, nigeria. they're now number three on the list and they own $267 billion of our debt. brazil comes in at number four, $250.5 billion. and then number five on the list, new to the list, the top five list, the caribbean banking centers. now own $240.4 billion of u.s. debt. by the way, caribbean banking centers are the bahamas, bermuda, cayman islands, netherlands and panama. this is who owns us. this is who owns our debt. and this is why on this side of the aisle, what we continue to say is the spending has to be dealt with. we have seen -- we've heard from everybody. we are hearing from economists all around the globe. and they repeatedly say what we are saying, what we've been saying for ye
have as in this for a while. i think there is always china, europe, and the congress that can miss this up. i think it is hard to stop this recovery. we have done everything we can to do it. we can do it again if we try hard. i think we will not succeed this time. >> we have not talked about the creation yet, which polling showed is a major concern for americans. for the long-term unemployed who have been left behind a little bit and then to the economic recovery, do you feel like the president and congress is doing enough to address the problem? what politically and realistically could be done in the next four years? >> i think the president is committed to this. i think he would like to see an extension of unemployment insurance. he would like to see it if possible an extension of the payroll tax cut. we just released a $4 trillion deficit revenue plan that calls for four and a billion dollars in short-term stimulus. we think there is a need for a infrastructure and roads and bridges. we think it has to happen sometime in the next 20 years. we have a situation with incredibly low
vacuum cleaner. sucking into the united states the net exports of europe, japan, and lately china. thus providing exporters -- germany, japan, or china -- with the requisite demand necessary. to keep the factories going. so, the ever expanding trade deficit was not an accident. it was a very clever way of replacing one that surplus recycling system with another. the first one, it was one where america had a surplus and america decided instead of doing what germany is doing at the moment -- which is cutting its nose to spite its face, and thereby entering into recession by cutting, cutting, cutting -- volcker and kissinger initially, and then volcker as the head of the fed had a different idea. we are going to expand our dominance and our wealth by expanding our deficit and using our deficits to provide the rest of the world with the demand which is necessary to grow their economies, even at the expense of ours. and who is going to pay for the deficit? if i have an ever-expanding deficit, the bank tells me it is game over. but if you are the united states of america and you have the rese
constitution and the history of the rule of law. this interview was part of a discussion on china opposed the legal system hosted by the brookings institution. china's >> ok. concepts. for 20 years i have been advising -- roughly half of that on financial economic matters. the other half a variety of topics. about 10 years ago, we started talking about role of law. i said to him at the time, what strikes me about this topic was that other than the occasion i can think of, other than when paul worked at the state department and bill clinton was president, this topic in my view has never gotten the attention it deserves. it has been treated too much as a technical topic. not as a fundamental topic about the relations of the states. in my experience, i always say the chinese leadership, the most distinctive characteristic is they are systematically opened. that is to say the modus operandi is on a particular topic, let's look for the best ideas throughout the world, bring them back, study them, and then customize them as appropriate for our own system. and yet in this one respect, they have
to year. it is hard to estimate countries like china because they are now pricing things the same way. they have large land forces and they are not deployed across the world. submarines and missiles. china is probably number one on the list. host: this from twitter. guest: that refers to overseas contingency operations. this is a fund that paid for the wars in iraq. it is about $88 billion in that account. there is a pentagon and washington funny math. some people say if the project out, we will save all this money. i wrote a report about saving $1 trillion. most of our troops will be out of afghanistan by 2014. nobody expects it will spend this level of money going out the long term in the future. so the $1 trillion in savings is money we would not have spent anyway. there are some built-in drawdowns in the defense department. in.se were built an about $487 billion over 10 years. they are coming back down. about 100,000 or so and they are built into the system. the pentagon is looking at things that way. host: roger in texas, republican caller. go ahead. caller: i am amazed i got thr
. if you look at the facts, 32% of our manufacturing base has been gutted and sold to china, india, any foreign country that has cheap labor. the top patriotic american companies are parking their profits and offshore accounts so they do not have to pay a fair share of their taxes. the bottom line is since the late '70s, the wealthiest 2% in this country are making 25 times their wealth that they made a black -- back then. there are only paying 40% more in taxes. this country is doomed if we do not start putting terrace of the imports coming into this country. the republican party is selling you an outright lie. thank you. host: let's show you a facebook posting. the economist and professor at the university of maryland will be with us and about 25 minutes or so. he will take your calls and give you his economic outlook for 2013. he has written a lot on the matter. from west virginia, independent. caller: is, sir. i would just like to say that i am not very optimistic above the future of the united states right now. we are in so much that it is pathetic. our budget is way over. this pre
not create any jobs. as far as china is concerned we do not hit that high of a tariff on their imports. i believe it is a lot higher. the whole thing was steve jobs. he treated the apple computer in his garage. when he got successful theme of his company over to china giving chinese people jobs. if steve jobs was born in china he would not even be able to create the apple computer. we just do not do enough for the people of this country. the people who are position to create jobs do not reinvest in the country. i do not think they should get tax breaks. if you want to give these corporate giant tax breaks given to those who want to invest in the country and create jobs. for a lower than the american businessmen. guest: i understand your frustration. part of it is the corporate tax .ode clearly needs to fix it a lot talk about fixing a and a revenue neutral way. it does not help lowering future deficits any easier. there are some things need to change. in general we need to realize that if we set our country on the bike path making the right investments in -- the right path making investme
. what if everyone in china had two cars and a swimming pool? that is not sustainable. the reason we cannot make any political progress is we have this cognitive dissonance. at the beginning of the session assayed save your money and consume more. at the same time. amazing. we have got to get beyond an economy that is predicated on unlimited, increasing amounts of consumption was no end in sight. the end is in sight. maybe if we have to cope with the reality for awhile longer, we can be more intelligent. >> on that note, we have to wrap up. one of the things that intrigued me with these kinds of situations is that ideas are very -- is very scarce resource and we have to think about maximizing and amplifying ideas. that is so incredible. the idea of possibility is so, i think, important to celebrate. when i say possibility, if people say you cannot do that and cannot do this and cannot think that, people are like -- there is a [inaudible] at work. we have to rebuild a new economy. above all, the fact that you're right. if we do not do it the planet will do it for us. i will leave it a
. but competitors in china are, rush show were trading on a daily basis. -- my competitors in china and russia work training. this is a position of irritation of a triple jump. i was like a robot in the sense that everything i was doing, the hours i was putting in it, the morning, the afternoon, the evening, i trained all they basically. my first session, 10:00, i was basically of the rank by nine and my last session would be at 6:00-6:30. then i would go to the gym. i look back, no wonder i was in really good shape. >> where did that drive? how did that drive? where do you get that drive? >> we were talking earlier about the role of parents. when you had mentioned the tiger mom or the tiger parents, we did not have tiger parents. they were there to support me and be there in times when i needed a push culminated motivation. it is just one of those things when you have a passion and a vision. you do not see anything else. that is what drives you every day. >> you just got engaged. are you going to be a tiger mom. [laughter] >> looking at the way i was raised with a set of rules and just the way my
expensive to do business in countries like china. our workers have become even more productive. our energy costs are starting to go down here in the united states. and we still have the largest market. so when you factor in everything, it makes sense to invest here, in america. and that's one of the reasons why american manufacturing is growing at the fastest pace since the 1990s. and thanks in part to that boost in manufacturing, four years after the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, our economy is growing again. our businesses have created more than 5.5 million new jobs over the past 33 months. so we're making progress. [applause] we're moving in the right direction. we're going forward. so what we need to do is simple. we need to keep going. we need to keep going forward. we should do everything we can to keep creating good middle- class jobs that help folks rebuild security for their families. [applause] and we should do everything we can to encourage companies like daimler to keep investing in american workers. and by the way, what we shouldn't do -- i just got to say this -- wh
even have to consider borrowing money from china or anywhere else and we're worried about a a.a.a. credit rating. why should we even have that as an option? we're the richest country in the world, and we put food out everywhere. also, one brief note on the gun laws issue. they're not going to ban a particular type of car because it drove through a crowd. so i don't see how they can target any particular weapon and say it's worse than another. combat loading weapon, you can almost do that as fast as you can pull the trigger also. so it's not a matter of how many rounds you can shoot. it's a matter of an insane person getting a hold of anything -- a knife, a car, anything. so -- guest: keith, and the reality of using guns for whatever illegal purposes oftentimes gets lost into washington, d.c. and the politics. boy, we're going to have to do something. we are going to have a press release, a press conference. there is a second amendment. thankfully the supreme court has recognized it is an individual right and a narrow decision. the one thing i want to go back, small business th
in the world paying big in chin. in china, individuals cannot own any arms. we have the same kinds of violent situations going on. in connecticut they had some of the strongest gun-control laws in the country and it still occurred there. let's look at the problems that caused this to occur. let's focus on solving those problems instead of just saying it is guns. right now today in connecticut, also weapons -- an assault weapon is a machine gun. they are already controlled. someone cannot just go to the store and buy an assault weapon today. it is not about clips or number of rounds in a gun. we have to focus upon those problems that caused this young man to snap, to kill his mom. i cannot imagine that. and then go and kill six-year oldss. the guns did not make him do that. the guns were not evil. he is evil, his act is evil. we need to deal with what caused the problems. i don't think the guns caused it. host: back to your home state of georgia, james is on the phone on the independent line. caller: just a few things. georgia is last on the bottom of the education. you are doing nothing to he
canceling each other out. how the president -- whoever the president might be -- do anything? you have china -- finding it impossible to provide a replacement for the demand that the west has done away with. so, i do not have an answer for your question. bewilderment. >> my question is about consumer demand and the extent to which the old system depended on it. if we do not have it to the same degree, could there possibly be a new economy? i cannot know how to say all of these in the right economic terms. i will say what i am thinking and see what you make out of it. its teams like all the economy's got to a point where it had to be based on growth. it could not just be sustainable. it had to grow. and that meant more consumers. so, then, that led to a lot of things ecologically that were not good for the earth's, things that people did to maximize profits. so, that is one thing. is there the possibility there might be a new economy that is not based on growth? second, if you do not have consumer demand at the same level that he used to -- and of course, i think that is why. one of the piece
look at china in particular, they are looking for corporate bonds rather than u.s. treasury securities because they do not like what they see. we are living on borrowed time. we have created another bubble. my view is the reason the fed is doing that is because the mandate was changed in the late 70's to where they have to be concerned with unemployment. we need a fiscal deal. the fed has to change its policy because both are imprudent and unsustainable over time. >> right. >> one of the most successful physical consolidations in the developed, democratic world in canada, in the mid 1990's, and i ask the canadian politicians how did you do it? the public went from cheering on spending to deficits within a matter of a year or two. the government in canada now risks some peril if they do not balance their budget. the answer you most frequently get is all they had to do was say, 40% of revenues was going to pay the interest bill on the canadian debt, and the public immediately realized that was not a great idea. we cannot make that argument. we run these massive deficits and because inter
to -- of china chance is progress to if there was one district name in changing the health and when people said the but the time from cover to,. it was a two session time. what they really meant was that they scanned it things they have read a yesterday. it was the reliable place to go. all of the news fit to print. it was a very important -- it was a very important part of history. let's take the normandy invasion in 1944, a major historic event. you remember -- most of us do not remember that, but if you think of that, could he should the map of the allies' progress? at the end of the thirties. horace. the crimes a point of departure, to make sure they have full reporters, that the most accurate news was really in the newspaper. the great news reporters could do so much. so it really was not the place for people to go to the news. i want to stress something else out. at that time, the government and the media were aligned. there was not this junction that we have now. it was not fox fees. there was not a gap that will come to later. i wanted to become the new media and administration was clos
about how china is taking over. what we need to make some decisions that is going to help the america people, corporate america, middle-class america, those individuals that are not in the capacity whatever so ever, i expect our elected officials to getting together, work this thing out, do the right thing, quit the fighting and come up with a solution even if they have to go back after the fact and just get things the way they are supposed to be. >> some of the expectations there from willard. we're going to go on to cal on the republicans line in tennessee. what do you think of the fiscal cliff and where the negotiations are so far? >> i think they ought to go over the fiscal cliff. we have people like that that are on the government bill too long. they are sucking the tit of the federal government. i think everyone should pay their fair share. we have almost a $17 billion national debt. not only, the rich but everyone should pay their fair share. we also need some spending cuts too. $3 for every $1. if you don't do this we're going top find ourselfs in a situation -- you want to ta
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)